In the morning, on March 22, 2024, Russia conducts a wide strategic operation across Ukraine. According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, about 90 cruise missiles and 60 Geran. Actually, some of these objects are used to deceive the Atlanticist air defense and the Ukrainian propaganda could also count its own missiles, which are usually missing their targets and falling to the ground. Anyway, several energy facilities are hit, including Dnipro hydroelectrical power plant (DHES), in Zaporozhye.
David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street
chronicle of censorship, fake news, whitewashing of the Ukrainian Nazism and war crimes, for the sake of the proxy war that NATO is conducting in Donbass and Ukraine, against Russia
Macron is like a poker player who is piling up stakes based on cards that he doesn’t have.
It is unequivocally clear that if France or any other NATO member deploys combat troops to Ukraine, those troops will be targeted and killed by Russian firepower.
In that case, the proxy war in Ukraine becomes an all-out war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia. That is, World War Three will have started, which in all probability leads inexorably to a nuclear conflagration.
Anyone pushing that trajectory is contemptible and criminal. Step up, Monsieur Macron.
This narcissistic wannabe Napoleon figure has been pushing the envelope for several weeks now since he hosted a conference on Ukraine in Paris on February 26 when he began publicly toying with the notion of sending NATO troops to Ukraine to combat Russia.
This week, Russian foreign intelligence chief Sergei Naryshkin claimed that a contingent of 2,000 French military personnel were preparing to enter the Ukraine conflict.
France’s military commanders vehemently dismissed the Russian intelligence claim, decrying it as an “irresponsible provocation”.
Just who is being provocative here?
The alleged French deployment is consistent with the unhinged and belligerent rhetoric of French President Emmanuel Macron over the past three weeks during which he has been hinting at sending troops and of having “no red lines” to make sure that Russia does not win the war in Ukraine.
Macron – like a puerile character – has also taken to goading other European leaders, notably his German counterpart, about not being “cowards” when it comes to supporting Ukraine.
Let’s be clear. NATO soldiers and weapons have been in Ukraine since the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014 that installed a Russian-hating NeoNazi regime. The NATO proxy war has been targeting Russia for over a decade and killed more than 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians during a low-intensity war of aggression in formerly Eastern Ukraine. That aggression was finally countered when Russian forces intervened in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
However, the deployment of NATO combat battalions on the ground takes the conflict to the threshold of all-out war. And Monsieur Macron appears to be willing to go there (while directing from his plush leather armchair in Elysée Palace and swirling a tumbler of vintage whiskey, bien sûr.)
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said on several occasions – and most recently as of last week – that if Russia is threatened existentially, even with conventional weapons, then it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons for its defense. Putin warned that nuclear weapons exist to be used. The Russian doctrine for possible nuclear war is well-defined and long-established. Putin is not saber-rattling as the Western media stupidly make out. He is merely reminding potential enemies of the ultimate reality.
Given the appalling stakes involved, it may seem bewildering that France’s Macron keeps talking about the possibility of deploying French and other NATO troops to fight in Ukraine.
What is driving the French head of state to make such crass allusions?
First of all, it should be noted that such military contingents are crass from an objective military point of view. The deployment of 2,000 French troops would change nothing on the battlefield. They would be destroyed in two days, as American military analyst Scott Ritter points out.
The risk is that the casualties inflicted on France would trigger other NATO members to intervene with greater numbers and firepower. That would lead to a spiraling escalation towards all-out nuclear war. As well as France, the Poles and Baltic states appear to be gung-ho about sending combat units.
So, the French military contingency does not make sense from a military point of view, unless that is, the ulterior objective is to incite escalation. In other words, the French battle group is deliberately put forward as a sacrificial lamb to act as a tripwire for full NATO mobilization to war.
There are other factors to weigh up in assessing Macron’s machoism. One is the suggestion that he is bluffing about increasing military involvement only as a means to bolster a personal negotiating position vis-à-vis Moscow in trying to broker a political settlement to the conflict in Ukraine.
Macron may have the backing of the smaller Russophobic NATO states like Poland and the Baltics over his military deployment rhetoric. But he seems to have rubbed the larger NATO members the wrong way. The United States, Britain and Germany have balked at Macron’s proposals.
That again suggests that Macron is puffing out his chest in a bid to set himself up as some kind of interlocutor with Putin to negotiate a deal over Ukraine. A deal that he can then try to milk for his own political glory as the “peacemaker”.
Recall that in the early stages of the conflict, Macron took it upon himself to act as a kind of “Putin whisperer”.
Another factor is the forthcoming European Parliamentary elections in June. Macron and other establishment politicians and parties are bracing for a severe electoral backlash from voters across the European Union who are furious over a raft of reasons. The EU’s backing of the futile war in Ukraine has taken a huge toll on European industries, businesses, farmers, workers, and public services.
The absurd irony is that Macron, Scholz, Rutte, Von der Leyen, Borrell, and so on, claim that they want to make Europe a global power. The reality is they have destroyed Europe in their abject servility to U.S. imperialism. For Washington, the ruination of Europe’s economy is a strategic opportunity to rebuild American hegemony and preserve the dollar as a global currency.
As we discussed in our editorial last week, Macron also has to contend with the ignominy and blow to his ego from numerous African nations repudiating arrogant notions of French neocolonialism.
Furthermore, Macron is no doubt trying to distract from rampant domestic economic and political woes by talking up a war in Ukraine with Russia. This is a desperate maneuver by a desperate politician. And it’s not just Macron who is potentially under fire. All of the European political establishment will be made to answer for leading the continent into a bloody and wasteful quagmire in Ukraine.
That brings us to another pivotal factor. The NATO proxy war in Ukraine is a debacle on a mammoth scale. The earlier defeat and disgrace of running from Afghanistan in 2021 will seem like a picnic by comparison. The entire credibility of NATO is at risk of collapsing irreparably from the imminent defeat in Ukraine at the hands of Russia.
Even Macron himself reportedly fears that the Kiev regime could implode very quickly. Therefore, it does not make sense to be considering the deployment of NATO troops to salvage a metaphorical sunken ship.
In sum, we may conclude that Macron’s bellicose gambling is a bluff. A demonic and deranged one, too. He is bluffing to pretend that he is some kind of great European leader and burnish his failing authority among French and European citizens.
The real danger is that bluffing and posing can lead to unintended consequences. Macron and arrogant NATO elites may think they can play mind games with Russia, using the threat of troops deploying to Ukraine as a way to intimidate Moscow or to make themselves look tough.
The unforgivable trouble with this charade is that Macron and his ilk are gambling on world peace and the future of the planet based on their petty political egos.
Macron is like a poker player who is piling up stakes based on cards that he doesn’t have.
He is daring Russia with nothing but his oversized ego. But the megalomaniac French poodle will find that Russia is not bluffing.
Macron’s failed attempt to become a “European leader” could lead the continent to an all-out war, Lucas Leiroz writes.
France continues to take steps towards militarization and escalating tensions with Russia. Amid discussions about whether or not to send French troops to Ukrainian territory, officials in Paris have made controversial statements about a supposed “preparation for war”, leading many analysts to believe that relations between France and Russia are close to a point-of-no-return — which could obviously have catastrophic consequences for the European continent and the entire world.
In a recent statement, Pierre Schill, commander of the French Army, stated that his troops are in combat readiness, capable of engaging in war at any time — if necessary. He believes that today’s France is severely threatened. In this sense, the country must be prepared to go to war against states that pose a danger to Paris.
At the same time, the government’s official speech continues to become increasingly aggressive towards the Russian Federation. French President Emmanuel Macron has advanced plans to increase his country’s interventionism in the Ukrainian conflict — and continues to refuse to rule out the hypothesis of direct intervention by French troops on the battlefield. In practice, France is simply advancing a plan that would certainly lead to direct war against Russia, which obviously means a high-risk global situation considering France’s NATO membership.
More than that, Russian intelligence recently discovered that around two thousand French soldiers are mobilized to be sent to Ukraine at any time. They are believed to be deployed in critical regions such as Odessa and the northern border, where the West fears the Russians will consolidate positions. Although it denies the information set out in the Russian report, the French government remains publicly willing to, “if necessary”, send troops to Ukraine, which is why tensions remain high.
Interestingly, the head of Ukrainian diplomacy, Dmitry Kuleba, stated that Russia misunderstood French plans. According to him, Macron ’s real intention is not to enter directly into the conflict, but only, “if necessary”, to allocate French instructors on Ukrainian soil so that they can train Kiev’s troops on the ground. In a scenario of military escalation and with logistical difficulties for Ukraine, some believe that this would be the best way to continue the current cooperation projects and training of Kiev’s forces by the West.
However, it is necessary to remember that at no point did Macron suggest that he was actually planning a mere sending of instructors. In his statements, the president actually said that he did not rule out the possibility of direct intervention in the war, making it clear that Paris could send troops to fight on the Ukrainian front line in the future. Furthermore, even if Macron said this incorrectly and his intention is only to send military trainers, this does not change the fact that Paris would, in practice, be going to war against Russia.
Western troops on Ukrainian soil are and will always be legitimate targets for Russian military forces. More than that, they are priority targets, as Moscow understands that these adversaries are the true strategists behind Ukrainian crimes. Several Western troops have already died in Ukraine — some of them acting as mercenaries, others as instructors or decision-makers. However, so far there is no official presence of these troops, which somehow still keeps tensions reasonably controlled.
From the moment a NATO country starts sending regular soldiers to Ukraine, even for mere instructional purposes, the crisis will escalate to an extremely serious, possibly irreversible, level. The official presence of Western troops in Ukraine would be a point of no return in ties between NATO and Russia, leading to an open WWIII — the consequences of which could be catastrophic.
There is also the risk that France and Europeans will simply be “abandoned” in this process. So far, the US, which is the leading country in NATO, has not shown any interest in direct intervention. For Washington, the most profitable scenario is the involvement of proxy agents in attritional conflicts that “wear down” Russia, without openly involving American troops. In this sense, it is very likely that, if France engages in an open war with Russia, there will be no direct American support for Paris and its European allies — after all, NATO’s collective defense obligations are not applicable when an alliance country begins hostilities against another state.
Indeed, Macron is acting in a totally risky and irresponsible way. In his selfish attempt to gain “leadership” among Europeans, the French president is leading the entire continent into an unprecedented security crisis.
Claude Janvier est écrivain, essayiste et chroniqueur de l’émission hebdomadaire « Libres Paroles » sur TV ADP. Intervenant régulier sur RT France et des médias libres et indépendants. Son dernier livre : « Les Démasqués, Qui dirige réellement le monde ? » KA Éditions https://kaeditions.com/product/les-demasques-qui-dirige-reellement-le-monde/
Depuis l’intervention de la Fédération de Russie en Ukraine le 24 février 2022, Emmanuel Macron se pose en chef de guerre incontesté en Europe. Ce doit être une idée fixe chez lui, car le 16 mars 2020, au début de la « crise sanitaire », ce dernier martelait au peuple français : « Nous sommes en guerre, en guerre sanitaire certes. Nous ne luttons ni contre une armée ni contre une autre nation, mais l’ennemi est là, invisible, insaisissable, et qui progresse… » (1) Je supposais à tort que son instinct guerrier allait s’amenuiser avec le temps. Or, ce « modus operandi intellectuel supposé temporaire » est devenu, malheureusement, permanent. Sa véritable nature perturbée s’étale de plus en plus et la question de sa légitimité à la tête de l’Etat se pose de plus en plus. Il n’est pas le seul dans ce cas. Joe Biden, 46e président des Etats-Unis, semble ne pas avoir tous ses neurones bien alignés. Le problème est qu’Emmanuel Macron et Joe Biden dirigent des pays possédant le feu nucléaire et qu’ils peuvent, d’un clic, transformer cette planète en une fournaise inhabitable. Élevé et biberonné par les anges gardiens de la République, l’ENA et la banque Rothschild, notre chef de l’État et des armées semble être tout émoustillé à l’idée de faire pleuvoir des bombes sur la Fédération de Russie. Tel un Néron qui regardait avec exaltation Rome en flammes, jouirait il en secret de voir Paris dévasté ? Le problème, avec les irresponsables, réside dans leur imprévisibilité. Entouré d’une caste technocratique, arrogante et définitivement déconnectée, plus centrée à conserver leurs privilèges qu’à contrarier « Jupiter », le bénéfice collectif de la nation est quasiment réduit à zéro. Un élan de folie collective a propulsé à la tête de l’État, en 2017, un jeune président ayant épousé une femme de la génération des « boomers ». Toutes les générations ont été séduites et l’ont porté au pinacle. J’étais loin de me douter, qu’avec un bilan aussi désastreux de son premier quinquennat, les Français allaient en redemander en 2022. Comme dit le proverbe : « L’erreur est humaine, mais persévérer est diabolique ». – Citation de Sénèque ou de Ménandre -. Voici quelques dates clé de l’escalade de l’Attila français : 24 février 2022. Ukraine : « A cet acte de guerre, nous répondrons sans faiblesse », déclare Emmanuel Macron (2) 29 août 2022. Extrait de son entretien avec Mateusz Morawiecki, Président du Conseil des ministres de Pologne. « Nos échanges de ce jour porteront bien évidemment sur la guerre en Ukraine et sur notre détermination commune à soutenir l’Ukraine pleinement, aussi longtemps que cela sera nécessaire. » (3) 31 décembre 2022. A l’occasion des vœux présentés aux Français, il avait envoyé un message aux ukrainiens : « Nous vous aiderons jusqu’à la victoire », « soutien sans failles ». En clair : Il venait de déclarer, de facto, la guerre à la Russie, mais il nous souhaitait une bonne année et une bonne santé. (4) 17 et 18 février 2023. Les leaders occidentaux étaient réunis à la conférence de Munich pour un « Davos de la sécurité internationale ». Emmanuel Macron y a accusé la Russie d’être une « puissance de déséquilibre et de désordre ». (5) 16 février 2024. Emmanuel Macron a demandé au gouvernement de faire, devant le Parlement, une déclaration « relative à l’accord bilatéral conclu avec l’Ukraine » suivie d’un débat et d’un vote. Cet accord de sécurité « inscrit notre soutien à l’Ukraine dans la durée pour faire échec à la guerre d’agression de la Russie. » Dans ce texte, signé avec Volodymyr Zelensky à Paris, la France s’engage à fournir en 2024 « jusqu’à trois milliards d’euros d’aide militaire supplémentaire » à Kiev, après un soutien qu’elle chiffre à 1,7 milliard en 2022 et 2,1 milliards en 2023. Soit un soutien civil et militaire dans la durée… (6) 26 février 2024. Le chef de l’Etat avait affirmé que l’envoi en Ukraine de troupes au sol ne devait pas « être exclu », au nom d’une « ambiguïté stratégique ». La plupart des autres pays européens et même les Etats-Unis, se sont démarqués de cette position, tout comme les opposants en France. Quant au Kremlin, il a accusé et à juste titre, le président français « d’augmenter le niveau d’implication directe de la France » dans le conflit. 7 mars 2024. Ayant réuni les chefs de parti à l’Élysée, ses paroles ont été sans ambiguïtés. Extrait du magazine Le Point. « Guerre en Ukraine. Ce qu’a dit Emmanuel Macron aux chefs de parti : aucune limite, aucune ligne rouge… au soutien de la France à l’Ukraine ». Tous les responsables des partis politiques présent sont ressortis inquiets par les propos du président de la République. (7) Mais après, dans le salon des Ambassadeurs, tous les partis d’opposition sont tombés d’accord, pour dire qu’il faut « apporter un soutien indéfectible à l’Ukraine ». Il faudrait savoir ! D’un côté, les principaux responsables des partis politique sont inquiets, et de l’autre il faut soutenir Zelensky et ses bataillons aux relents néo-nazi. – Azov, Centre Droit, Aidar…- (8) Depuis l’opération spéciale lancée en Ukraine le 24 février 2022 par la Russie, une partie du haut commandement militaire, s’exprime régulièrement dans les médias. Des généraux, tels que Yakovleff, Goya, Trinquand, Pellistrandi, Minguet, multiplient les interviews. Leurs analyses séduiront certainement les férus de l’art de la guerre et conforterons les soutiens inconditionnels de la « suprématie » de l’armée ukrainienne face à « l’infériorité » de l’armée de la Fédération de Russie. Présentées finement, leurs explications comportent immanquablement une plaidoirie en faveur d’un rehaussement constant du budget des armées. Plus de bombes, plus de chars, plus de balles, plus de destructions, donc plus de morts. (9) Éminence grise de l’Élysée, Isabelle Dumont, est une experte de l’Ukraine qui a soufflé dans l’oreille de François Hollande et d’Emmanuel Macron. Inconnue du grand public, parlant quatre langues, elle fait partie du cercle restreint des conseillers de la présidence. Entre 2015 et 2019, elle a été ambassadrice à Kiev et a ensuite intégré le pôle diplomatique de l’Élysée. Elle connaît l’Ukraine sur le bout des doigts et considère que la guerre dure, en réalité, depuis 2014. – Date du coup d’Etat de l’Euromaïdan -. Elle a fait partie du groupe de travail de négociations sur les accords de Minsk, signé le 5 septembre 2014. Accords qui n’ont jamais été respectés par les gouvernements ukrainiens. Depuis le 14 décembre 2023, elle a été postée ambassadrice à Ankara en Turquie. Le problème est qu’Isabelle Dumont ne semble pas avoir dénoncé les bombardements incessants causés par les différents gouvernements ukrainiens dans la région du Donbass depuis 2014, alors qu’elle en a été un des témoins directs. – plus de 18 000 morts dont beaucoup de civils -. Pourquoi ? (10) et (11) Son remplaçant en Ukraine s’appelait Etienne Poncins. En poste depuis 2019 à Kiev, il cède sa place le 18 août 2023 à Gaël Veyssière. Voici son message posté sur le site « La France en Ukraine » à cette date sur X : « Alors que je quitte mes fonctions, je veux redire le soutien indéfectible de la France à l’Ukraine et notre admiration pour sa courageuse résistance à l’agression russe. ». Totalement en phase avec l’OTAN et la politique de la France. Le nouvel ambassadeur à Kiev s’appelle Gaël Veyssière. A peine arrivé, il montre qu’il soutiendra sans faille la politique jusqu’au boutisme d’Emmanuel Macron. Extrait de son discours du 24 janvier 2024 : « Il n’y a pas de paix durable sans justice et sans sanction. La France y contribuera » « Dans sa tribune pour Європейська правда, l’Ambassadeur de France en Ukraine Gaël Veyssière détaille la poursuite du soutien de la France à l’Ukraine en 2024… » (12) Ces ambassadeurs doivent être atteints du « syndrome de Stockholm ». En effet, un décret a été publié le 17 avril 2022 annonçant la suppression du corps diplomatique dès 2023. Cette mesure s’inscrit dans le cadre de la réforme de la haute fonction publique d’Emmanuel Macron, envisageant la suppression des conseillers des affaires étrangères et des ministres plénipotentiaires. Les 800 hauts fonctionnaires du ministère des Affaires étrangères avaient jusqu’au 1er janvier 2023 pour choisir de rejoindre le pot commun des « administrateurs d’État ». Ceux qui refusaient cette transition risquaient de ne pas voir leur contrat renouvelé à l’échéance de 2023. Abordons maintenant le nerf de la guerre. Qui finance le complexe militaro-industriel ? (13) Ce sont évidemment vos impôts. Grâce à l’émergence, depuis les années 1990, de fonds cotés en bourse (ETF 14), beaucoup de financements ont été possibles sans que cela n’attire l’attention du grand public. Le 30 juin 2022, au cours d’une cérémonie de signature organisée par le secrétaire général de l’OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, les dirigeants et les ministres de 22 pays de l’Alliance ont lancé le fonds OTAN pour l’innovation, premier fonds de capital risque « multi souverain » au monde. Voici un extrait de sa déclaration : « Ce fonds est unique en son genre. Grâce à son horizon d’investissement à 15 ans, il va permettre de développer des technologies naissantes qui ont le potentiel d’induire des changements profonds pour notre sécurité dans les décennies à venir, en soutenant l’écosystème d’innovation de l’Alliance, ce qui renforcera la sécurité de la population de nos pays, soit un milliard de personnes. » Le 1er août 2023, vingt-trois pays de l’Alliance (OTAN) sont officiellement devenus associés commanditaires du Fonds OTAN pour l’innovation (NIF). C’est le « premier fonds de capital-risque multi souverain au monde », qui va investir 1 milliard d’euros dans des start-ups technologiques du secteur de la défense. L’industrie de la défense a retrouvé des couleurs et de l’intérêt auprès des investisseurs depuis le début de la guerre en Ukraine. Les budgets militaires ont explosé pour le plus grand plaisir des marchands d’armes. Actuellement en Europe, les engagements d’aide militaire pour l’Ukraine ont augmenté de manière spectaculaire pour atteindre la fabuleuse somme de 50 milliards d’euros. Le complexe militaro industriel européen n’a pas la capacité de produire aussi vite que celui de la Russie et pourtant, il continue de percevoir l’aide ukrainienne via le fonds spéculatif EFT de l’OTAN. Pour produire plus d’obus, les lobbies militaires réclament plus d’aide des États pour générer encore plus de bénéfices. Emmanuel Macron a suivi cette tendance depuis 2022, en augmentant le budget du ministère des armées tout en déclarant sa volonté de créer une économie de guerre et un complexe militaro industriel français. En 2024, la France est devenue le deuxième marchand d’armes du monde, et l’Ukraine le troisième importateur d’armes. (15) À ce propos, une question : je n’ai jamais entendu parler de mouvement de grèves dans les usines d’armement… Curieux, non ? Et la paix dans tout ça ? Avec des va-t-en-guerre au sommet de beaucoup de pays de l’UE, des Etats-Unis et d’Israël, elle joue les abonnés absents. Ceci implique que la responsabilité de chacun de nous est engagée. Chaque personne peut influencer le cours de l’histoire. Le futur n’est pas écrit. Il sera ce que la population dans son ensemble en fera. Habiter un havre de paix ne dédouane en rien de ses responsabilités envers ses voisins et les peuples de la Terre. Continuer à faire l’autruche est le moyen le plus rapide pour que cette planète finisse un jour par exploser. Chaque personne a le pouvoir de dire non. Chaque personne peut s’élever contre des lois et des ordres liberticides. Chaque personne peut dire non à la guerre et à la misère. C’est juste une question de bon sens. Mais encore faut-il le vouloir.
Paragraphe cité dans l’ouvrage de Claude Janvier et de François Lagarde. Date de parution : Mai 2024. Titre : l’Etat Profond Français. Qui, comment, pourquoi ? KA Editions
Un ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund) est un produit financier, similaire aux actions ou aux obligations, émis par des sociétés de gestion agréées. Contrairement à d’autres fonds, les ETF sont cotés en continu et peuvent être achetés ou vendus tout au long de la journée comme des actions. L’innovation réside dans le fait que, grâce à un seul ordre, les investisseurs peuvent diversifier leurs placements dans toute une série d’entreprises, regroupées dans un « pot » commun avec d’autres investisseurs. Les ETF répliquent généralement un indice boursier, offrant ainsi une diversité d’investissements, allant des grandes entreprises mondiales à des secteurs spécifiques tels que l’énergie verte, la technologie, la sécurité, l’armement, la cybersécurité, etc
The military activity of NATO is becoming provocatively bold. The country-members and U.S. satellites have significantly increased their military maneuvers. When viewed as isolated events, they may appear as routine exercises, although, in the overall context of the current unfriendly statements from the alliance’s leadership and heads of the countries involved, these actions seem like a certain preparation for war. Various factors indicate that Russia is the target.
In addition to the ongoing major Steadfast Defender exercises, other maneuvers serve as complements or are entirely autonomous.
On February 26, near Sicily, the maritime exercises Dynamic Manta 24 began, aimed at enhancing anti-submarine warfare skills. Six submarines from the navies of Greece, France, Italy, Spain, and Turkey are involved. Canada, Italy, Germany, Greece, Turkey, Britain, and the United States use maritime patrol aviation in the exercises, which will last until March 8.
In Norway, Sweden, and Finland, the Nordic Response 2024 maneuvers are taking place. Over 20,000 soldiers from 13 countries participate, with approximately 10,000 on land. Participating countries include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Britain, and the USA. These exercises will continue until March 14. It is noted that these maneuvers are somehow linked to the Joint Warrior exercises of the navies of Britain, Iceland, and Norway, which took place at the end of February.
The official goals include improving experience and knowledge for operations in the cold Arctic climate. The exercises also contribute to closer integration of Northern countries within NATO and strengthen operational cooperation in the field of collective defense in Northern European countries.
In Lapland, northern Finland, instructors from the Finnish Defense Forces conducted various courses in February for military personnel from NATO countries. The course covered topics such as the use of layered clothing, protection against frostbite-related injuries, maintaining functionality, fire building, developing cross-country skiing skills, and ice rescue. It was a kind of basic winter survival course in Arctic latitudes, where the average winter temperature regularly drops below -20 degrees Celsius. Military personnel from France, Britain, and the United States also participated in this event, in addition to Finland.
The fact that NATO is concerned about military actions in the northern latitudes indicates the alliance’s conditional adversary – Russia. Besides participating in all NATO activities, the United States also conducts its own exercises with various objectives. At the end of February, the 1st, 2nd, and 54th Security Force Assistance Brigades (specialized Pentagon units whose main task is to advise, support, maintain communication, and assess operations with allied countries and partner countries, SFAB) conducted the second exercise “Combined Victory in the Information Environment.”
Within the framework of the training, under the pretext of the legend of protecting a friendly state from interference in communication systems, the following tasks were worked on:
– Conducting modern warfare and multi-domain warfare with the ability for remote control of infrastructure using cyber means.
– Using FM frequencies and Internet-controlled systems like “Smart Home” for conducting information operations.
– Simulating the operation of social networks and the internet environment, spreading malicious links through email.
These maneuvers placed significant emphasis on electronic warfare and the electromagnetic spectrum, as it pertains to the resilience of the command post and maintaining a low signature level. This attention may stem from data obtained from the Ukrainian front, where Russian forces have recently been effective in identifying and suppressing Ukrainian command posts. As a result, the U.S. military is attempting to compel units to reduce their signatures and overall emission spectrum to decrease the chances of being detected and targeted.
The first exercises of this kind for the Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB) took place in August 2023. A Pentagon representative commented at the time, stating, “We have extracted many lessons, and we are using these lessons to expand our training strategy in the information domain and align our strategy with [National Training Center, Joint Readiness Training Center, and Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center] in the long term. I sincerely believe that we are ahead of events and aligning with what the Army and the Department of Defense are aiming for with our information dimension and training in information advantages, especially for conventional army units.”
According to the spokesperson for the military exercises, even during the August exercises, officials were able to reproduce the information dimension of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, teaching soldiers about the effects in the information sphere that could impact their missions. Soldiers were provided with mobile phones and laptops along with role players. Participants in role-playing scenarios posted on social networks, and consultants had to track and understand how to combat them from the perspective of influencing their missions.
It is evident that the real objectives of such activities involve operational testing of the capabilities of the U.S. military, especially in a proxy war scenario where the U.S. is not officially participating. Ukraine is, of course, an excellent testing ground for such actions.
However, indications of potential direct involvement are provided by other maneuvers. In early February, the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Army conducted combat exercises simulating mass casualties near the Air National Guard Base at Gowen Field in Idaho.
During these exercises, soldiers, pilots, and sailors were given various tasks on how to properly and effectively provide medical assistance or move the wounded under heavy fire. Soldiers not directly involved in treating casualties provided cover with fire and used thick smoke to conceal the movements of the medical brigade. When they were in helicopters for medical evacuation, an army air transport intensive care group stabilized the condition of the casualties.
It is apparent that the goal of such exercises is to practice the coordination of different types of forces during a large-scale battle. Although the United States has another clearly defined threat—China, considering NATO’s other maneuvers and enhanced military-industrial modernization, and against the backdrop of Macron’s statements about sending troops to Ukraine, which appeared as some kind of test, there is an impression that U.S. and NATO strategists are planning a reckless military adventure against Russia.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Back in January last year, Turkish Hürseda Haber published a detailed report about the losses in manpower and equipment for both the Russian military and the Kiev regime forces. Citing Israeli intelligence sources, specifically the Mossad, the report contained a rather interesting and highly detailed breakdown of losses for both sides. Nearly all numbers were confirmed to be true in the following months, although Hürseda Haber hasn’t updated its list since publishing it. One particular figure stood out – foreign fighters (mostly NATO personnel) and mercenaries. No other media outlet or source ever published such a detailed account of the deaths and injuries of foreigners in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Namely, it mentioned the following:
234 NATO officers killed and wounded in action (mostly British and American);
2,458 NATO soldiers killed and wounded in action (Germany, Poland, Lithuania, etc.);
5,360 mercenaries killed and wounded in action.
And while it wasn’t possible to verify these claims with complete certainty at the time, they were much closer to estimates by various non-Western sources and military experts.
What’s more, the figures given for the Kiev regime did not contradict the number cited by the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who stated that the Neo-Nazi junta’s losses exceeded 100,000 soldiers. Leyen’s statement, given back in November 2022, was promptly cut from the official address video, as it was undermining the ludicrous narrative of “Russia losing”. Apart from some guesstimates, we haven’t had any detailed updates since then. That is, until a few days ago when the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) published some information about it.
On March 14, the MoD updated its data on foreign mercenaries eliminated by the Russian military. According to the official reports, in total, 13,387 mercenaries have joined the Neo-Nazi junta forces, with 5,962 killed in action (KIA) so far. Most of them came from Poland, the United States, Canada and Georgia. This includes 1,497 Poles (of 2,960 involved), 561 Georgians (of 1,042 in total), 491 Americans (of 1,113), 422 Canadians (of 1005), 360 Britons (of 822), 349 Romanians (of 784), 147 French (of 356) and 88 Germans (of 235). While there is some divergence between these numbers, especially considering how much time has elapsed since then, they are not too far apart. In addition, these are only the numbers that the Russian military was able to confirm unequivocally.
In reality, the actual number could be much higher, especially when taking into account hundreds of long-range drone and missile strikes launched by the Russian military.
On the other hand, the mainstream propaganda machine gives much larger (albeit varying) figures. According to the Washington Post, approximately 20,000 foreigners from over 50 countries have joined the ranks of the Kiev regime forces. The number could certainly be inflated for propaganda purposes, but it’s also not too far from the data given by the Russian MoD.
Either way, one thing is certain – no foreign fighter was ready for the conflict in Ukraine.
NATO personnel are used to fighting largely helpless countries and resistance movements that would be formed ad hoc in the aftermath of the deployment of American occupation forces, as well as those of their numerous vassals and satellite states. On the other hand, fighting the Russian military means that there’s no air superiority and, thus, no close air support (CAS), which is central to any NATO military operation. Worse yet, it’s Moscow that has a clear advantage in that regard and nothing indicates this will change.
Back in mid-January, French mercenaries learned this the hard way. Namely, they were stationed at a hotel in the eastern city of Kharkov when the Russian military launched a long-range strike that resulted in at least 80 casualties, over 60 of whom were killed. And these men weren’t even on the frontline. They were foolish enough to not only think they’re safe, but also believed that Moscow would simply ignore such a high concentration of foreign fighters in one place. And yet, the situation in the trenches is not much better either. In a recently published video account involving an American and a British mercenary, they touched upon several topics concerning drones and trench warfare in Ukraine. Expectedly, there was some propaganda involved, but they pointed out the high-tech aspect of the conflict.
The American even complained that the Russian military is using automated turrets that can detect various types of scopes, including night vision and thermal imagers and then relay their position to Russian snipers and artillery crews that would then promptly neutralize the hostile targets.
Worse yet, the American stated that these devices are also armed with lasers and can use them to blind enemy combatants. Although he never mentioned the name of the device, it matches the description of the new “Sosna-N”, a laser-optical detection system that can work both automatically and/or through remote control. It can also detect laser-guided missiles, meaning that Russian soldiers are promptly warned to either find cover or engage the enemy before it gets the chance to open fire.
However, this is not the end of troubles for foreign mercenaries who were foolish enough to join the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Namely, the Kiev regime has shown the propensity to use them exactly the same as its own forces – cannon fodder.
Worse yet, it has demonstrated a willingness to directly kill its most loyal henchmen, as evidenced by the recent shootdown of a Russian Il-76MD transport aircraft packed with Ukrainian POWs (prisoners of war), including approximately a dozen “Azov Battalion” members.
There was also at least one case when two French mercenaries were killed for trying to leave Ukraine after they uncovered the Kiev regime’s plot to attack a high-ranking delegation from France.
All this should serve as a lesson to any and all foreign personnel in Ukraine, be it adventurers with unrealistic expectations of what actual warfare is, adrenaline addicts, avid Call of Duty players, pathological Russophobes or professional NATO “advisers” – you will get killed if you come to Ukraine. Best case scenario, you could get maimed for life or (if you’re really lucky) you might escape with no major physical injuries, but still end up with a severe case of PTSD.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
Back in the Summer of 1997, at the height of yet another crisis surrounding the seemingly never-ending saga of UN weapons inspection teams led by yours truly trying to gain access to sites considered by Iraq to be sensitive to their national security, I had surrounded the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service (the Mukhabarat), and was insisting that I be granted access to specific locations inside the headquarters deemed relevant to the Security Council’s mandate governing the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. My chief interlocutor was General Amer al-Sa’adi, the former head of Iraq’s military industry and, at the time, a special advisor to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.Back in the Summer of 1997, at the height of yet another crisis surrounding the seemingly never-ending saga of UN weapons inspection teams led by yours truly trying to gain access to sites considered by Iraq to be sensitive to their national security, I had surrounded the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service (the Mukhabarat), and was insisting that I be granted access to specific locations inside the headquarters deemed relevant to the Security Council’s mandate governing the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. My chief interlocutor was General Amer al-Sa’adi, the former head of Iraq’s military industry and, at the time, a special advisor to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
I briefed General Sa’adi on my desire to gain access to two specific locations, one in the M-4 (Operations) Directorate, and the other in the M-5 (Counterintelligence) Directorate. General Sa’adi informed me that these were the most sensitive aspects of the Mukhabarat’s work and granting me access would be impossible. I was persistent, however, and at the time I had the backing of the Security Council, which had made it clear in a recent resolution that a denial of access to my team would constitute a material breach of Iraq’s obligations to disarm, paving the way for the US to attack Iraq. This was no empty threat—in the Persian Gulf, the US had deployed an aircraft carrier and missile-carrying ships and submarines, backed up by US Air Force fighter-bombers operating out of bases in neighboring countries.I briefed General Sa’adi on my desire to gain access to two specific locations, one in the M-4 (Operations) Directorate, and the other in the M-5 (Counterintelligence) Directorate. General Sa’adi informed me that these were the most sensitive aspects of the Mukhabarat’s work and granting me access would be impossible. I was persistent, however, and at the time I had the backing of the Security Council, which had made it clear in a recent resolution that a denial of access to my team would constitute a material breach of Iraq’s obligations to disarm, paving the way for the US to attack Iraq. This was no empty threat—in the Persian Gulf, the US had deployed an aircraft carrier and missile-carrying ships and submarines, backed up by US Air Force fighter-bombers operating out of bases in neighboring countries.
After denying my team access for several hours, General Sa’adi finally relented, and I took my team to the offices we had singled out as being of interest, where we found documents which furthered our understanding of how Iraq had conducted covert procurement of proscribed items in the early years of our disarmament work in Iraq. When the inspection was finished, I approached General Sa’adi and rebuked him. “We could have been done with this hours ago, and without any drama,” I said.
Scott will discuss this article on Ep. 145 of Ask the Inspector. Watch the first hour live on Rumble, X, Facebook, Twitch or Locals. The second hour (starting at 9 PM ET) will stream only on Rumble, X and Locals, and will feature the music of Bob Dylan. Our special guests Friday night are Malcolm Burn, host of The Long Way Around, who recorded and mixed Dylan’s Oh Mercy album, and Hank Rosenfeld, author of The Jive 95.
Earlier in the day, while my team was parked at the various entrances to the Mukhabarat compound, preventing any exit of personnel, vehicles, and/or documents, the Iraqi security forces responsible for our protection intercepted an enraged Iraqi citizen who, armed with an AK-47 automatic rifle, was planning to carry out a drive-by attack on me and my team. He was stopped less than 50 yards from where my command team and I were standing.
“Mr. Scott,” General Sa’adi replied, “we do not like you sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.”
“You yourself saw that the information we found was relevant to our mandate,” I replied. “We are simply doing our job.”
“Yes,” Sa’adi noted. “It was relevant. But only as history. We no longer have the weapons you are looking for. We have declared everything. And now you are engaged in an academic exercise that puts our national security at risk.”
I took umbrage at his comments. “We had asked you about the relationship between the Mukhabarat and weapons procurement in the past. You denied there had been a connection. We had information that said there was. As such, we had a duty to assume that your denials were de facto evidence that these procurement activities were continuing.”
I pointed back at the main headquarters building, where we had conducted the searches. “And the documents we discovered proved that we were correct—there was a connection between the Mukhabarat and covert weapons procurement.”
“Yes,” General Sa’adi replied, “you were correct. But so were we. The documents also proved that this procurement activity was stopped years ago. Just like we said it had been.”
“So why not let my team in and close the door on this chapter? Why delay and harass us?”
General Sa’adi turned to me and smiled. “There is a saying among the Bedouin tribes. ‘If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.’ This,” Sa’adi said, gesturing at the Mukhabarat compound, “is our tent. We cannot allow you to put your nose under the tent flap. If we do, you won’t stop until you’re inside. And once inside, you will never leave.”
“But I did get inside,” I said.
“Yes, but we made it as inconvenient for you as possible. And now you are leaving. And if you come back, we will make it even more inconvenient.”
He paused, staring at me. “We do not want the UNSCOM camel in the Iraqi tent. Because with UNSCOM comes America. And with America comes death and destruction.”
General Amer al-Sa’adi
I have often reflected on General Sa’adi’s words that day, and their prescience—UNSCOM did, eventually, get our nose under the Iraqi tent.
And with us came America.
And death followed.
The expression “don’t let the camel’s nose under the tent” became part of my personal lexicon, to be uttered anytime I thought an unwelcome presence was trying to winnow its way into my universe.
This past week, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that there we no “red lines” when it came to the prospects of French troops being deployed to Ukraine. Initial reports indicated that the French military was preparing to accelerate the reinforcement of a battalion-sized task force (some 700 men) currently deployed in Romania to a brigade (around 2,000 men). France had been preparing to take this action sometime in 2025, but the precipitous collapse of the Ukrainian army on the frontlines of its ongoing war with Russia compelled Macron to accelerate the operation in anticipation of dispatching this brigade into Ukraine.This past week, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that there we no “red lines” when it came to the prospects of French troops being deployed to Ukraine. Initial reports indicated that the French military was preparing to accelerate the reinforcement of a battalion-sized task force (some 700 men) currently deployed in Romania to a brigade (around 2,000 men). France had been preparing to take this action sometime in 2025, but the precipitous collapse of the Ukrainian army on the frontlines of its ongoing war with Russia compelled Macron to accelerate the operation in anticipation of dispatching this brigade into Ukraine.
In the grand scheme of things, a 2,000-strong French military contingent will not, in and of itself, alter the strategic balance of power on the ground in Ukraine. At best, the French battlegroup would be able to relieve a similarly sized Ukrainian unit serving in a security capacity so that the Ukrainians could be redeployed to the front, where it could be expected to be ground up in a matter of days.
The French have tried to muddy the waters further by stating that a French contingent, if deployed to Ukraine, would do so in the status of “neutral” troops.
The question is to what extent Russia would allow such a deployment of foreign forces onto the soil of Ukraine, even if these troops were not directly engaged in combat.
French troops deployed to Romania
The answer?
Russia would not allow such a deployment. First, the idea of France assuming a “neutral” posture in a conflict in which they have already labeled the Russians as their “adversary” is laughable. Adversaries, by definition, cannot be neutral.
But the main reason Russia cannot allow even a limited French military deployment in Ukraine is this: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.”
These 2,000 troops are just the nose of a larger NATO camel. France has already stated that it is prepared to deploy up to 20,000 troops to Ukraine, the vanguard of a coalition of forces drawn from NATO nations that could total up to 60,000 strong.
And once 60,000 troops are deployed to Ukraine, then NATO will inevitably use Article 4 of the NATO Charter to define a situation of grave national security importance to the NATO collective and convert those 60,000 troops into a NATO force backed by the full power of NATO.
The camel will be fully ensconced inside the Ukrainian tent.
And for Russia to remove the camel, it would need to go to war against NATO.
Not a proxy war, such as is currently being waged using Ukraine as a tool of the collective West, but rather a full-scale conflict which will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons, at first on European soil, and then later as part of a general nuclear conflict between Russia and the collective West.
In short, the end of the world as we know it.
The extent to which the United States is involved in the plans of France and its European partners is not fully known. The Biden administration has consistently articulated against any escalation which could result in American “boots on the ground” out of fear of allowing the situation to escalate out of control, resulting in a third world war that would rapidly devolve into nuclear war.
Russia, however, doesn’t differentiate between French boots and American boots—they are all NATO boots.
If Russia lets the French nose of the camel into the Ukrainian tent, then the NATO neck will come next, accompanied by the American body.
Der Internationale Währungsfonds (IWF) hat drei Geburtsdaten. Die erste fand am 22. Juli 1944 statt, als die Teilnehmer der internationalen Währungs- und Finanzkonferenz in Bretton Woods die IWF-Charta verabschiedeten. Zweitens traten am 27. Dezember 1945 die auf der Bretton-Woods-Konferenz angenommenen Dokumente in Kraft, nachdem sie von 27 Staaten ratifiziert worden waren. Der dritte ist der 1. März 1946, als der IWF seine Arbeit aufnahm (an diesem Tag wurde der erste Kredit vergeben, Empfänger war Frankreich). Wenn wir uns auf den ersten Termin konzentrieren, dann kommt in nur vier Monaten das 80-jährige Jubiläum der Stiftung. Ein wichtiger Grund, die Arbeit des IWF zu bewerten und über seine Zukunft nachzudenken.
Ich möchte Sie daran erinnern, dass der Fonds auf der Bretton-Woods-Konferenz als wichtiges Element in der Gesamtgestaltung des Währungs- und Finanzsystems der Nachkriegszeit konzipiert wurde. Die Konferenzteilnehmer waren sich einig, dass die Grundlage dieses Systems der US-Dollar sein würde, der die Hauptwährung für internationale Zahlungen und Abrechnungen sowie eine Reservewährung sein würde. Die Vereinigten Staaten verpflichteten sich, den Währungsbehörden anderer Länder frei Dollar gegen Gold aus ihren Reserven einzutauschen. Es wurde eine feste Goldparität für die amerikanische Währung festgelegt – 35 Dollar pro Feinunze. Das wichtigste Prinzip des Bretton-Woods-Währungs- und Finanzsystems ist die Aufrechterhaltung stabiler (fester) Wechselkurse der Landeswährungen. Das Erreichen einer solchen Stabilität sollte durch die Aufrechterhaltung eines Gleichgewichts in der Zahlungsbilanz der IWF-Mitgliedsländer gewährleistet werden. Im Falle erheblicher und länger anhaltender Störungen dieses Gleichgewichts können die genehmigten Wechselkurse (im Verhältnis zum US-Dollar) angepasst werden. Aber das ist der letzte Ausweg. Um dies zu verhindern, können Kredite an Länder vergeben werden. Für diese Art der Kreditvergabe wurde der Internationale Währungsfonds konzipiert. Auf der Bretton-Woods-Konferenz wurde auch die Gründung der Internationalen Bank für Wiederaufbau und Entwicklung (IBRD) beschlossen. Es war für die Kreditvergabe an Investitionsprojekte und die Förderung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung von Ländern bestimmt. Und im Gegensatz zur Weltbank war der IWF darauf ausgelegt, Stabilisierungskredite zu vergeben, die zum Ausgleich der Zahlungsbilanzen und zur Aufrechterhaltung fester Wechselkurse nationaler Währungen beitragen.
In den ersten zwei Jahrzehnten half der IWF vor allem europäischen Ländern mit chronisch defizitären Handels- und Zahlungsbilanzen. In den 60er Jahren begann der Fonds allmählich, sich auf Entwicklungsländer auszurichten. In der zweiten Hälfte der 60er Jahre. Es wurden gravierende Mängel im Aufbau des Währungs- und Finanzsystems von Bretton Woods aufgedeckt. Insbesondere fiel es Washington schwer, die Goldparität des Dollars aufrechtzuerhalten. Die US-Edelmetallreserven gingen zurück. Im November 1967 kam es zu einer starken Abwertung des britischen Pfunds. Usw.
In der ersten Hälfte der 1970er Jahre. Die Struktur des Bretton-Woods-Systems brach rasch zusammen. Das vielleicht auffälligste und bedeutendste Ereignis war die Erklärung des amerikanischen Präsidenten Richard Nixon vom 15. August 1971, dass das US-Finanzministerium den Umtausch von Dollar in Gold einstellen würde. Im März 1973 verzichteten alle Länder endgültig auf die Beibehaltung fester Wechselkurse ihrer Währungen und gingen zum „Freefloat“ über.
Im Januar 1976 fand in Kingston, Jamaika, eine internationale Währungs- und Finanzkonferenz statt, auf der der Tod des Bretton-Woods-Systems offiziell verkündet wurde. Der Gold-Dollar-Standard wurde durch den Papier-Dollar-Standard ersetzt. Das neue (jamaikanische) System sah keine Wechselkursfixierung vor. Den Ländern wurde sogar empfohlen, sich von den „Vorurteilen“ der Vergangenheit zu lösen, als sie Beschränkungen des freien Kapitalverkehrs einführten, um die Wechselkurse ihrer Währungen zu stabilisieren.
Und wenn Wechselkurse schwanken können, warum wird dann der Internationale Währungsfonds als „Krankenwagen“ benötigt, der Kredite vergibt, die die Zahlungsbilanz stabilisieren? Ende der 1970er Jahre gab es Vorschläge, den Fonds ganz abzuschaffen. Es gab auch Vorschläge, den IWF zur Lösung neuer Probleme umzuwidmen.
Und in den 80er Jahren wurde der Fonds tatsächlich umgewidmet. Darüber hinaus geschah es irgendwie unbemerkt, ohne große Werbung. Ich möchte Sie daran erinnern, was an der Wende der 70er und 80er Jahre auf der Welt geschah.
Das habe ich schon Mitte der 1970er Jahre geschrieben. Der Petrodollar war geboren. 1973-74. Es gab eine Energiekrise auf der Welt, in deren Folge sich der Preis für schwarzes Gold vervierfachte. Im Jahr 1979 kam es zu einem weiteren Anstieg der Ölpreise, der als zweite Energiekrise bezeichnet wurde (ausgelöst durch die Revolution im Iran). Saudi-Arabien und andere OPEC-Länder begannen, ihre gigantischen Dollareinnahmen in das US-Bankensystem zu leiten. Und amerikanische Banken begannen mit diesem Geld, die Kreditvergabe an lateinamerikanische Länder und andere Länder der Dritten Welt zu erhöhen.
1979 wurde Paul Volcker Chef des US-Notenbanksystems. Er begann sofort mit der Umsetzung einer Geldpolitik, die später als Volcker-Schock bezeichnet wurde. Es begann eine starke Erhöhung des Leitzinses der US-Notenbank, den Volcker schrittweise auf 20 % erhöhte. Der Volcker-Schock war ein Schock nicht nur für amerikanische Unternehmen, sondern auch für Länder der Dritten Welt. Schließlich waren die Kredite, die sie von amerikanischen Banken erhielten, variabel verzinst. Der Volcker-Schock führte zu einem starken Anstieg der Verbindlichkeiten der Entwicklungsländer aus erhaltenen Krediten. Es kam zu einer globalen Schuldenkrise, die 1982–83 ihren Höhepunkt erreichte.
Zu dieser Zeit begann die aktive Umgestaltung des IWF. Seine Aufgabe war es, den Ländern Hilfe zu leisten, die in der globalen Schuldenkrise versinken. Aber in Wirklichkeit — Unterstützung der Gläubigerbanken beim Eintreiben von Schulden aus diesen Ländern.
Nun versprach der Fonds, Kredite nicht zur Stabilisierung des Wechselkurses zu vergeben, sondern zur Refinanzierung der daraus resultierenden gigantischen Schulden von Ländern der Dritten Welt. Die Gewährung von Krediten aus dem Fonds war jedoch an eine ganze Reihe von Bedingungen geknüpft. Der Kern dieser Bedingungen ist eine vollständige Umstrukturierung der Wirtschaftspolitik des Schuldnerstaates, die Schaffung der günstigsten Bedingungen für die Geschäftstätigkeit des westlichen, vor allem amerikanischen Kapitals. Nun sollten die Kredite des Fonds nicht als „Stabilisierung“, sondern als „gebunden“ definiert werden, das heißt an viele, manchmal sogar politische Anforderungen geknüpft sein.
In nur ein oder zwei Jahren entwickelte sich die Stiftung zu einer Institution, die der amerikanische Ökonom William Engdahl als „Schuldenpolizist im Dienste der New Yorker Banken“ bezeichnete. Folgendes schreibt er in seinem Buch „Money Gods“: „Die Bedingungen der IWF-Darlehen und die Zustimmung des Landes zur Unterzeichnung eines Abkommens mit dem IWF waren Teil eines Programms, das vom US-Beamten beim IWF, Irwin Friedman, entworfen und später dafür belohnt wurde.“ seine Arbeit mit einer hohen Position bei Citicorp. Der IWF… wurde 1944 in Bretton Woods gegründet, um die Währungen und Handelsbeziehungen der Industrieländer zu stabilisieren. Und nun meisterte der Fonds eine völlig neue Aufgabe – ein Schuldenpolizist im Dienste der New Yorker Banken zu werden.“
Paradoxerweise hat die „Hilfe“, die der Fonds den geschädigten Ländern gewährte, die Auslandsschulden dieser Länder nicht verringert, sondern erhöht. Angefangen hat alles mit der „Unterstützung bei der Umschuldung“. Durch eine solche Umstrukturierung verlängerte sich lediglich die Rückzahlungsdauer der Kredite, in der Folge verlängerte sich jedoch auch die Schuldendienstzeit. Dadurch erhöhte sich die Höhe der gezahlten Zinsen.
Nach Angaben des führenden Schweizer Versicherungsunternehmens Swiss Re beträgt der Gesamtbetrag der Auslandskredite für alle Entwicklungsländer, sowohl langfristige als auch kurzfristige, für den Fünfjahreszeitraum 1982-1987. um das Eineinhalbfache gestiegen – von 839 Milliarden US-Dollar auf fast 1.300 Milliarden US-Dollar. Fast das gesamte Wachstum war nicht auf neue Kredite, sondern auf die Umstrukturierung alter Kredite zurückzuführen.
The U.S. president is playing the deadly balancing act of privately demanding that the war stop, while openly funding the Israeli war machine, writes Ramzy Baroud.
Free Palestine protest at the White House on Nov. 4, 2023. (Diane Krauthamer, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
When the foreign policy of a country as large and significant as the United States is governed by a case of cognitive dissonance, terrible things happen.
These terrible things are, in fact, already taking place in the Gaza Strip, where well over 100,000 people have been killed, wounded or are missing, and an outright famine is currently ravaging the displaced population.
From the start of the war on Oct. 7, the U.S. mishandled the situation, although recent reports indicate that Biden, despite his old age, has read the overall meaning of the Oct. 7 events correctly.
According to the Axios news website, on Oct. 8, Biden said during a meeting with special counsel, Robert Hur, [who was interviewing Biden about his handling of classified documents when he was vice president] that the “Israel thing” – Hamas attack and the Israeli war on Gaza – “has changed it all.”
By “change it all,” he was referring to how the outcome of these events combined will “determine what the next six, seven decades look like.”
Biden is not wrong. Indeed, everything that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government and war council have done in Gaza point to a similar Israeli reading of the significance of the “world-altering” events.
Netanyahu has proven his willingness to carry out genocide and starve millions of Palestinians because he still feels that the superior firepower of the Israeli army is able to turn back the clock, and restore Israel’s military standing, geopolitical influence and global position.
He is wrong, and over five months of war and senseless killing continue to demonstrate this claim.
US Political Gamble
Biden calling Netanyahu on Oct. 17, 2023, ahead of his trip to Israel. (White House, Erin Scott)
But the American political gamble in the Middle East and the global repercussions of Washington’s self-defeating foreign policy makes far less sense.
Considering Washington’s historic support for Israel, the U.S.’ behavior in the early days of the war was hardly a surprise.
The U.S. quickly mobilized behind Netanyahu’s war cabinet, sent aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean, indicating the U.S. is ready for a major regional conflict.
Media reports began speaking of U.S. military involvement, specifically through the Delta Force, although the Pentagon claimed that the 2,000 US soldiers were not deployed to fight in Gaza itself.
If it was not obvious that the U.S. was a direct partner in the war, U.S. mainstream media reports ended any doubt. On March 6, The Washington Post reported that “the United States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began.”
With time, however, U.S. foreign policy regarding Gaza became even more perplexing.
Though in the early weeks of the war-turned-genocide, Biden questioned the death toll estimates produced by the Gaza Ministry of Health, the casualties count was no longer in doubt later on.
Asked on Feb. 29 about the number of women and children killed by Israel during the war, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin answered without hesitation: “It’s over 25,000.”
Yet, the numbers are in constant growth, as well as U.S. shipments of weapons to Israel. “We continue to support Israel with their self-defense needs. That’s not going to change,” John Kirby, U.S. national security adviser, told ABC News on March 14.
This particular statement is worth a pause, since it came after many media leaks regarding Biden’s frustration, in fact, outright anger in the way that Netanyahu is handling the war.
ABC News reported in early February that Biden has been “venting his frustration” over his administration’s “inability to persuade Israel to change its military tactics in Gaza.” Netanyahu, the outlet quoted Biden as saying, is “giving him hell.”
Netanyahu in April 2021. (DoD, Jack Sanders)
This is consistent with other recent reports, including one by Politico, claiming that Biden has privately called the Israeli prime minister a “bad fucking guy,” also over his Gaza war stance.
Yet, Netanyahu remains emboldened to the extent that he appeared in a Fox News interview on March 11, openly speaking about “disagreements,” not only between Biden and Netanyahu’s governments, but between the U.S. president “and the entire Israeli people.”
It is glaringly obvious that, without continued U.S. military and other forms of support, Israel would have not been able to sustain its war on the Palestinians for more than a few weeks, thus sparing the lives of thousands of people.
Moreover, the U.S. has served as Israel’s vanguard against the vast majority of world governments who, daily, demand immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Strip.
Israeli military during ground operations in the Gaza Strip on Nov. 1, 2023. (IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)
If it were not for repeated U.S. vetoes at the U.N. Security Council, a resolution demanding a ceasefire would have been surely passed.
Despite this unconditional support, the U.S. is struggling to stave off a wider regional conflict, which is already threatening its political standing in the Middle East.
Therefore, Biden wants to regain the initiative by renewing discussions — though without commitment to real action — about a two-state solution and the future of Gaza.
Netanyahu is not interested in these matters since his single greatest political achievement, from the viewpoint of his rightwing constituency, is that he has completely frozen any discussions on a political horizon in Palestine. For Netanyahu, losing the war means the unceremonious return to the old American political framework of the so-called peace process.
The embattled Israeli prime minister also knows that ending the war would constitute an end to his own government coalition, mostly sustained by far-right extremists like Itamar Ben-Gvir, minister of national security. and Bezalel Smotrich, minister of finance. To achieve these self-serving goals, the Israeli leader is willing to sustain a clearly losing war.
Though Biden has completely “lost faith in Netanyahu,” according to the Associated Press, he continues to support Israel without openly questioning the disastrous outcomes of the war, not just on the Palestinian people, but also on the region and the world, including his own country.
Americans, especially those in Biden’s Democratic Party, must continue to increase their pressure on their administration so that it resolves its cognitive dissonance in Palestine. Biden must not be allowed to play this deadly balancing act, privately demanding for the war to stop, while openly funding the Israeli war machine.
Though the majority of Americans already feel that way, Biden and his government are yet to receive the message. How many more Palestinians would have to die for Biden to hear the chants of the people, “Ceasefire now?”
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the editor of the Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books including: These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons (2019), My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (2010) and The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (2006). Dr. Baroud is a non-resident senior research fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is http://www.ramzybaroud.net.
Der Friedensstifter 